Australian M113s

[lobbie111]

How to mine protect and Australian M113, Cut off the bottom of a bushmaster and weld it onto and M113...

Well, I think what needs to be addressed it extending the required service of reservists each year say from one month (thats what it is isn't it?) to two...well alternately you could keep a couple of the M113's at "TAFE centers" and the individual crews could do night classes even earning mechanic qualifications...this would free up a lot of time (discounting immediate field repairs...).

 

[Aussie Digger]

I know this is a bit fftopic but how much training time would a Reserve Infantry unit get into the 3 days?

Depends what they're doing, where they have to do it (ie: the further one deploys, the less time for training), what facilities they have to work with, Charlie Company 9RQR for instance was formerly (and perhaps may still be) located in a small depot in a suburb on the Southside of Brisbane. As far as Army provided training areas, they had none.

On the other hand they had a great understanding with local police, Council and Businesses and were often able to use nearby business premises at night for various activities...

Infantry is a bit different to other corps however as a 9 man section can conduct a lot of different tasks by itself. Training a 9 man section over 3 full days can achieve quite a bit...

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

Depends what they're doing, where they have to do it (ie: the further one deploys, the less time for training), what facilities they have to work with, Charlie Company 9RQR for instance was formerly (and perhaps may still be) located in a small depot in a suburb on the Southside of Brisbane. As far as Army provided training areas, they had none.

On the other hand they had a great understanding with local police, Council and Businesses and were often able to use nearby business premises at night for various activities...

Infantry is a bit different to other corps however as a 9 man section can conduct a lot of different tasks by itself. Training a 9 man section over 3 full days can achieve quite a bit...

A mate of mine is a rifleman in Bravo Coy 5/6 RVR. Apparantly most of the weekley stuff (i.e. every thursday night) is section level training. He said even an hour or two a week of section drills starts to tell after a few months. So at the section level 3 days should be enough to get plenty done (even platoon level). Of cource if you want to maneuver at the Company or Batttalion (god forbid Brigade) level 3 days will be testng (considering the battalion cant maneuver at the surry hills depot).

 

[Aussie Digger]

How to mine protect and Australian M113, Cut off the bottom of a bushmaster and weld it onto and M113...

Well, I think what needs to be addressed it extending the required service of reservists each year say from one month (thats what it is isn't it?) to two...well alternately you could keep a couple of the M113's at "TAFE centers" and the individual crews could do night classes even earning mechanic qualifications...this would free up a lot of time (discounting immediate field repairs...).

M113's require a lot of servicing. It isn't the skills needed to do so, but rather the time taken to replace a thrown track (the infamous "bashing track"). All M113 qualified drivers were able to conduct the majority of servicing requirements for their vehicles, but the fact is that time taken conducting these tasks, took away from limited time available for training activities.

On a 2 week exercise, M113AS1's would have to return to a base camp every 3 or 4 days for more significant servicing (beyond the capacity of the immediate crews) and they need to refuel usually once a day, sometimes once every 2 days, depending on the tasks being conducted.

It's the nature of the beast. Tracked APC's require a lot of effort in preparation for a deployment, a lot of effort to actually deploy a meaningful distance and then a lot of servicing when deployed. For a reasonably well-resourced regular unit, it's not such a big deal. For a reserve unit which is FAR down the pecking order for parts, training area access, access to transport capabilities etc, plus the obsolete nature of the vehicles themselves and the lack of budget to upgrade ALL of them, Army had to make a decision.

The M113's didn't provide the capability to justify the continued use of them. The Landrovers provide a significant capability (I don't see you arguing for SASR and 4RAR (Cmdo) to operate M113's!) in their own right and they are far easier to use and more to the point they are adequate to achieve the training goals of the units at a low cost...

 

[jacktar]

M113's require a lot of servicing. It isn't the skills needed to do so, but rather the time taken to replace a thrown track (the infamous "bashing track"). All M113 qualified drivers were able to conduct the majority of servicing requirements for their vehicles, but the fact is that time taken conducting these tasks, took away from limited time available for training activities.

.

It has to be conceded that Tracked vehicles require a lot more servicing and time. Also a M113 requires much heavier equipment to conduct that servicing than a Land Rover. But that said, my understanding is that the dual pin track system now being used is infinitely more reliable than the old system. Also you would have to assume that the new engine/transmission, fuel and electrical systems are also more reliable and if designed well, easier to maintain.

Has anyone heard if the AS3/AS4s are proving to be more reliable in th real world?

 

[buglerbilly]

It has to be conceded that Tracked vehicles require a lot more servicing and time. Also a M113 requires much heavier equipment to conduct that servicing than a Land Rover. But that said, my understanding is that the dual pin track system now being used is infinitely more reliable than the old system. Also you would have to assume that the new engine/transmission, fuel and electrical systems are also more reliable and if designed well, easier to maintain.

Has anyone heard if the AS3/AS4s are proving to be more reliable in th real world?

There is not enough history yet with the AS3/4's to make much comment I would have thought.

I'm also interested in anybody's experince with Band Tracks, the one-piece rubber thingies............

 

[lobbie111]

The M113's didn't provide the capability to justify the continued use of them. The Landrovers provide a significant capability (I don't see you arguing for SASR and 4RAR (Cmdo) to operate M113's!) in their own right and they are far easier to use and more to the point they are adequate to achieve the training goals of the units at a low cost...

Well the thing is an M113 has the subtly of a brick going through a window, when your a commando and you priority is stealth, thats not such a good idea...

But when discussed in the reserves context which primarily are there the defend against a full scale invasion (extremely unlikely I know) I think armour would be ideal for counter assault, although maybe the Bushmaster can fill that role, it can be up-armoured correct? It has a small logistics and maintainability footprint. Its protected against mines and IED's, transports a section and could probably fit a .50 to a 20mm on the top in a remote control weapons station, plus on the mount that the ASLAV-PC's have, the javelin missile can be used. Plus it have three days worth of combat stores preloaded, perhaps this is a better option than both the LandRover and the M113.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

Well the thing is an M113 has the subtly of a brick going through a window, when your a commando and you priority is stealth, thats not such a good idea...

But when discussed in the reserves context which primarily are there the defend against a full scale invasion (extremely unlikely I know) I think armour would be ideal for counter assault, although maybe the Bushmaster can fill that role, it can be up-armoured correct? It has a small logistics and maintainability footprint. Its protected against mines and IED's, transports a section and could probably fit a .50 to a 20mm on the top in a remote control weapons station, plus on the mount that the ASLAV-PC's have, the javelin missile can be used. Plus it have three days worth of combat stores preloaded, perhaps this is a better option than both the LandRover and the M113.

Yeah but the landrover's cheap. Remote weapons stations, 20mm cannons, Javelins? We are talking about chocko's you know!

How about some real arty first?

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Light armoured vehicles like the M113 can be very subtle in many situations. Stealth in a land combat context is not about being <50m away and invisible. Plus commandos are not a ‘stealth’ asset they are a company level raiding force specialising in high speed and high fire power. SASR provide a special recce, or LRRP, capability that focuses on stealth and endurance.

Army Reserves are not just to defend Australia from a full scale invasion, nor are units constituted so they can go to war tomorrow. They provide a range of uses to the national government one of which is retaining military skills, particularly at a collective level, that can’t be sustained alone by the fulltime force. You don’t just give 5,000 people a uniform, tanks and equipment and suddenly have a mechanised brigade.

As to the kind of technology a Defence Reservist can handle; it ranges from RBS-70 laser guided air defence systems to F/A-18A tactical fighters. In many areas the ADF relies on its reserves to provide the most technically competent personnel, such as surgeons.

The biggest problem reserves have is maintaining capabilities that require high level collective and individual skills. Capabilities like a tank regiment.

 

[lobbie111]

Well, as you said with the commandoes how they do not rely on stealth, you also mentioned speed, to my knowledge the M113, doesnt go all that fast, plus its not that good when you are talking about a slowish vehicle with similar armour to a bushmaster when a defending force has .50 Machine Guns.

Ozzy, that was just a guide, best option would be to give the Reserves all of the carl gustavs and purchase some MBT LAW (NLAW's) for the regular forces (again just a suggestion).

It doesnt have to cost that much money if you use the same equipment for every unit (on rotations), that being each unit trains with one lot of equipment meaning only one set needs to be maintained and the rest can be stored and just given the yearly once over at the base, saves costs as you will only have to be forking out immediate money for maintainence on one set of equipment and the people on aprentiships or in the reserves would take care of the once over.

Tell me if that made sense, I think you get my point?

Land rovers may be cheap but then an MBT comes along and the regular army is busy what then? do we hide in the bushes and wait with a wad of C-4?

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

Lobbie the rolleyes wasnt a dig at you, rather at the fact that the chocko's are loosing their 105's for 88mm mortars.

 

[Aussie Digger]

Well the thing is an M113 has the subtly of a brick going through a window, when your a commando and you priority is stealth, thats not such a good idea...

I guess you haven't seen the photographs of SASR on patrol in Somalia then?

Have a guess what vehicle they used...

But when discussed in the reserves context which primarily are there the defend against a full scale invasion (extremely unlikely I know) I think armour would be ideal for counter assault, although maybe the Bushmaster can fill that role, it can be up-armoured correct? It has a small logistics and maintainability footprint. Its protected against mines and IED's, transports a section and could probably fit a .50 to a 20mm on the top in a remote control weapons station, plus on the mount that the ASLAV-PC's have, the javelin missile can be used. Plus it have three days worth of combat stores preloaded, perhaps this is a better option than both the LandRover and the M113.

Sorry mate, I don't mean to be rude, but you are wrong in SO many ways...

1. The reserves are NOT the "primary" defence against invasion. The regular Army, RAN and RAAF are.

2. Under the old "Defence of Australia" strategic guidance, the reserves primary role was to provide a basis for the expansion of the Army to meet "wartime" commitments.

Basically, the reserve elements (2nd Division) would have provided the basis for a significant enlargement of Australia's Army. 1x Reserve battalion would split (in effect: provide the "original rifle company" and part of the Admin company for the new unit) into the basis of 2,3 or 4 "frontline" battalions depending on need etc.

3. The Reserve "Armoured Corps" Units used to be structured and equipped to provide an APC capability for the Brigade they were attached to. Their role changed in the late 90's early "naughties" (2000 onwards) to providing a recon/surveillance capability. Their previous troop carrying role was removed because of the introduction of Project Bushranger which provided specific transport capability for the battalions themselves.

All the reserve Armoured Corps units from 2000 onwards were therefore effectively intended to provide the same sort of capability as the ASLAV equipped 2nd Cavalry Regiment and 2/14 Light Horse (Queensland Mounted Infantry) (Reconnaisance) Regiment's.

The difference being that the Reserve units are equipped with the M113 and the Regular units equipped with the ASLAV (variants of both vehicles ALSO equipped each unit. The generic name is intended to keep things simple) however the regular units have the time available to adequately "qualify" on the modern capabilities as well as conduct individual and collective training and the Reserves do not.

With respect to your other comments, PLENTY of other vehicles can be "up-armoured" (including the Land Rover). The vehicle is not the important issue, but rather the capability the particular unit (and it's individual soldiers therein) can generate. A soldier is currently trained as a driver on an ASLAV vehicle (IET drivers course) in 6 weeks. In a wartime scenario, I can only imagine that this would be significantly reduced...)

The Land Rover RSV's are to be replaced in the next few years, but they can mount the weapons you see as necessary if required. Perhaps you are not familiar with the British Land Rover "WMIK" variant?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9c/Len02.jpg

The current "typical" configuration of the Land Rover RSV's is for rthem to mount: 1x F-89 Minimi 5.56mm LSW and 1x MAG-58 7.62mm GPMG. I am sure that "heavier" weapons could be carried without a significantly greater effort, if necessary.

As to the "persistence" of the vehicle, a Land Rover RSV can carry 3 days worth of kit, fuel, stores etc. An M113 is struggling to do so...

 

[Aussie Digger]

Lobbie the rolleyes wasnt a dig at you, rather at the fact that the chocko's are loosing their 105's for 88mm mortars.

It's 81mm mortars Ozzy...

The situation is the SAME within Artillery units however. Batteries need to be able to function as a battery and this is of most importance.

Not what sort of "bomb" they punch downrange during training activities...

81mm Mortars are an effective combat capability. Just not as "sexy" as a 105mm gun, I expect...

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

It's 81mm mortars Ozzy...

The situation is the SAME within Artillery units however. Batteries need to be able to function as a battery and this is of most importance.

Not what sort of "bomb" they punch downrange during training activities...

81mm Mortars are an effective combat capability. Just not as "sexy" as a 105mm gun, I expect...

But at least with the 105's the battery crews are qualified on a real gun and have x ammount of experiance on the weapons system. An 81mm mortar would be a fair bit different to a 105mm hammel i would expect. If we did go to war all of the crew would have exacly 0 experiance with a 105mm (which is probably what they would be equiped with) as opposed to "a fair bit" now.

Your right the battery organization will remain intact which is the important part but equipeing them with a weapons system that they will probably not use when the real thing happens seems a tad counterproductive to me. You could equip the chocko battalions with SLR's or SMLE's too, they would still have all of the unit organizational training, which again is the improtant bit, but they're all going to have to requalify on F88's when we actually go to war. 81mm's may be more cost effective but there will definatly be a capability price to pay, even in mobilization mode.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

An 81mm mortar would be a fair bit different to a 105mm hammel i would expect. If we did go to war all of the crew would have exacly 0 experiance with a 105mm (which is probably what they would be equiped with) as opposed to "a fair bit" now.

Once again this is where a ‘I reckon’ methodology comes a scupper. It only takes a week long course to convert gun numbers from one type of artillery piece to another. Now that bringing guns into line through surveying techniques has been replaced by GPS/INS pointers this will take even less time.

What takes a lot of time to develop is skills in target acquisition, management and prosecution, the role of the joint offensive support teams and coordination centres. They need some kind of bomb being shot through the air in order to practise this skill. 81mm is far cheaper than 155mm and is good enough for this role.

Which is what this is all about. The RRAA is about to cease being in the 105mm business. The Hamels will go into storage and the M2A2s will all become features in parks and at gates alongside the L5s and 25 Pounders. Benalla will stop producing 105mm M1 ammunition. Replacing this systems will be 30 self propelled 155mms (K9 or PzH2000) and 35 M777A2s. We will either retain and modernise 35 M198 155mm guns or acquire another 35 M777A2s.

Either way the RRAA will have 100 155mm guns. These guns will be used to equip the six regular batteries, training units and provide a pool for the reserves. Some reserve batteries may even be equipped with a 155mm gun system full time. But many others will need another indirect fire system to retain skills.

The 81mm mortar will fill this role adequately. If there is a threat requiring national mobilisation we will have enough warning time to either acquire another 100 155mm gun systems (SP and M777) or refurbish the Hamels and restart M1 ammo production.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

Once again this is where a ‘I reckon’ methodology comes a scupper. It only takes a week long course to convert gun numbers from one type of artillery piece to another. Now that bringing guns into line through surveying techniques has been replaced by GPS/INS pointers this will take even less time.

Sure, but how much experiance will the unit have with said weapons system? Zilch, Zero, Nada! Its akin to giveing the chocko's SMLE's. Sure they can do all the important training elements that go into a infantry unit, but when they actually have to fight they're going to have to use a compleatly new weapon, the F88. There HAS to be a capability price to pay for this, because even if your men have had 1~3 years of infantry/artillary experiance they have no experiance bayond basic qualification on the weapons syetm they are going to actually use. In any case if they were going to change from 105's to 155's that would be a tad simpler than transfering from 81mm's to 155's one would think.

What takes a lot of time to develop is skills in target acquisition, management and prosecution, the role of the joint offensive support teams and coordination centres. They need some kind of bomb being shot through the air in order to practise this skill. 81mm is far cheaper than 155mm and is good enough for this role.

Its good enough to keep the battery together as a battery. Your actualy repeating what i said earlier. But again they're going to have to use a new system on which they have absoloutly no experiance with.

Which is what this is all about. The RRAA is about to cease being in the 105mm business. The Hamels will go into storage and the M2A2s will all become features in parks and at gates alongside the L5s and 25 Pounders. Benalla will stop producing 105mm M1 ammunition. Replacing this systems will be 30 self propelled 155mms (K9 or PzH2000) and 35 M777A2s. We will either retain and modernise 35 M198 155mm guns or acquire another 35 M777A2s.

Either way the RRAA will have 100 155mm guns. These guns will be used to equip the six regular batteries, training units and provide a pool for the reserves. Some reserve batteries may even be equipped with a 155mm gun system full time. But many others will need another indirect fire system to retain skills.

The 81mm mortar will fill this role adequately. If there is a threat requiring national mobilisation we will have enough warning time to either acquire another 100 155mm gun systems (SP and M777) or refurbish the Hamels and restart M1 ammo production.

I can see the standardisation benifits for only useing 1 artillary calibur, and it was allways going to be 155 because of the growth potential. But again i reiterate, there HAS to be a capability price to pay for this but the MoD must have deemed the price worth the logistical benifits.

 

[lobbie111]

I guess you haven't seen the photographs of SASR on patrol in Somalia then?

Have a guess what vehicle they used...



Sorry mate, I don't mean to be rude, but you are wrong in SO many ways...

1. The reserves are NOT the "primary" defence against invasion. The regular Army, RAN and RAAF are.

2. Under the old "Defence of Australia" strategic guidance, the reserves primary role was to provide a basis for the expansion of the Army to meet "wartime" commitments.

Basically, the reserve elements (2nd Division) would have provided the basis for a significant enlargement of Australia's Army. 1x Reserve battalion would split (in effect: provide the "original rifle company" and part of the Admin company for the new unit) into the basis of 2,3 or 4 "frontline" battalions depending on need etc.

3. The Reserve "Armoured Corps" Units used to be structured and equipped to provide an APC capability for the Brigade they were attached to. Their role changed in the late 90's early "naughties" (2000 onwards) to providing a recon/surveillance capability. Their previous troop carrying role was removed because of the introduction of Project Bushranger which provided specific transport capability for the battalions themselves.

All the reserve Armoured Corps units from 2000 onwards were therefore effectively intended to provide the same sort of capability as the ASLAV equipped 2nd Cavalry Regiment and 2/14 Light Horse (Queensland Mounted Infantry) (Reconnaisance) Regiment's.

The difference being that the Reserve units are equipped with the M113 and the Regular units equipped with the ASLAV (variants of both vehicles ALSO equipped each unit. The generic name is intended to keep things simple) however the regular units have the time available to adequately "qualify" on the modern capabilities as well as conduct individual and collective training and the Reserves do not.

With respect to your other comments, PLENTY of other vehicles can be "up-armoured" (including the Land Rover). The vehicle is not the important issue, but rather the capability the particular unit (and it's individual soldiers therein) can generate. A soldier is currently trained as a driver on an ASLAV vehicle (IET drivers course) in 6 weeks. In a wartime scenario, I can only imagine that this would be significantly reduced...)

The Land Rover RSV's are to be replaced in the next few years, but they can mount the weapons you see as necessary if required. Perhaps you are not familiar with the British Land Rover "WMIK" variant?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9c/Len02.jpg

The current "typical" configuration of the Land Rover RSV's is for rthem to mount: 1x F-89 Minimi 5.56mm LSW and 1x MAG-58 7.62mm GPMG. I am sure that "heavier" weapons could be carried without a significantly greater effort, if necessary.

As to the "persistence" of the vehicle, a Land Rover RSV can carry 3 days worth of kit, fuel, stores etc. An M113 is struggling to do so...

Thanks, thats actually explained a heap to me so reserves are really the ones you call on when you missing bits, not as an individual force as such...

Yes, I was actually looking at the WMIK recently looks interesting although my one problem with the landrovers AND the M113 is just age thats all really.

 

[flyboyEB]

As to the "persistence" of the vehicle, a Land Rover RSV can carry 3 days worth of kit, fuel, stores etc. An M113 is struggling to do so...

How does the new Mercedes-Benz G Wagen the ADF is replacing the Rover with stack up?

 

[Aussie Digger]

Thanks, thats actually explained a heap to me so reserves are really the ones you call on when you missing bits, not as an individual force as such...

Yes, I was actually looking at the WMIK recently looks interesting although my one problem with the landrovers AND the M113 is just age thats all really.

Yep the perogative for the reserve forces now is to provide "fully trained" individual soldiers and sub-units (sections, platoons and in some cases, companies) capable of "slotting into" and reinforcing the regular units that carry the burden of the operational deployments.

The M113 and Landrover ARE aging which is why they are being upgraded or replaced.

Project Overlander has already announced the G Wagen will replace the Landrover and obviously the M113AS3/4 will replace the extant M113AS1 capability in the short term and LAND 400 will replace the M113 entirely in later years.

I have no great insight into the G Wagen, either. Having no actual experience and only a slight interest in the vehicle. Given it won the Project Overlander vehicle replacement project and Land Rover withdrew it's vehicles after the tender was released, that suggests to me that it has significant capabilities that the Land Rover simply can't match...

 

[lobbie111]

Yep the perogative for the reserve forces now is to provide "fully trained" individual soldiers and sub-units (sections, platoons and in some cases, companies) capable of "slotting into" and reinforcing the regular units that carry the burden of the operational deployments.

The M113 and Landrover ARE aging which is why they are being upgraded or replaced.

Project Overlander has already announced the G Wagen will replace the Landrover and obviously the M113AS3/4 will replace the extant M113AS1 capability in the short term and LAND 400 will replace the M113 entirely in later years.

I have no great insight into the G Wagen, either. Having no actual experience and only a slight interest in the vehicle. Given it won the Project Overlander vehicle replacement project and Land Rover withdrew it's vehicles after the tender was released, that suggests to me that it has significant capabilities that the Land Rover simply can't match...

I'm surprised that Bowler off road didn't enter the competition, their [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dLvlfAyduvA"]wildcats[/ame] would be great...


With regards to the new M113's how do they stack up agianst say a CV-90 or M2/M3 Bradley Reliability/Maintainence and Cross Country ability.